Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments
Four cases heard so far this week
On Monday and Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases of Dawson v. Steager, Lorenzo V. v. SEC, Biestek v. Berryhill, and Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.
In the case of Dawson v. Steager the Court heard arguments as to if a West Virginia law that exempts retirement income of state and local firefighters and law enforcement officers from taxation should also apply to federal marshals. The Court will determine if this is in violation of a U.S. law that allows for this exemption only if “the taxation does not discriminate...because of the source of the pay or compensation.”
Lorenzo V. v. SEC seeks to answer the question of if a false statement by someone who does not retain “ultimate authority” over the statement still subject the person to a claim of fraud. Ultimate authority refers to the fact that Lorenzo claims that his boss was the one who signed off on false statements that were made by Lorenzo himself.
Biestek v. Berryhill is a case that asks if an applicant for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits can use a vocational expert’s testimony as evidence of other work if the expert does not provide data on which that testimony is actually premised upon.
Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals hopes to answer questions related to patent laws when an inventor sells their invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualify to block the acquisition of the patent.
- For the Justices of the Court to have wisdom as they deliberate on these cases.
- For rulings that will bring about a fairer society.
- For the Court to have wisdom on the best cases to hear in the future.